Michael Anderson v Apollo Limousines Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 128

Michael Anderson v Apollo Limousines Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 128

Mr Anderson's employment was subject to a three to four week probationary period, determined in advance and reasonable in the circumstances. His dismissal occurred during that period. The Court, pursuant to Regulation 30B, has no jurisdiction and the application is dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Anderson; Respondent: Apollo Limousines Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Industrial Relation Application / Final Judgment; Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Probationary Period
Industrial Law Termination of Employment Probationary Period

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Anderson

Applicant

Apollo Limousines Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Relation Application / Final Judgment; Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Mr Anderson dismissed during a probationary period?
  2. 2 Is the probationary period reasonable and determined in advance under Regulation 30B?
  3. 3 Does the Court have jurisdiction given Regulation 30B exclusion?

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Anderson's employment was subject to a three to four week probationary period, determined in advance and reasonable in the circumstances. His dismissal occurred during that period. The Court, pursuant to Regulation 30B, has no jurisdiction and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application is to be dismissed.